Origens Interpretation of the
Creation

During the twentieth century Origen has been credited with coining
the Gap Theory,(1) the Preadamite theory,(2)
and the Framework Hypothesis(3) and put forward as a model of
how Christians today should interpret Genesis. It is obvious from the
contradictory nature of these theories that Origen could not have held all of
them at one time. Indeed, he never held any of them, as will become clear in
the following summary of Origens doctrine of creation.

In attempting to examine closely Origens understanding
of creation we are faced with considerable difficulty, because his major work
on the subject (his Commentary on Genesis) has been lost, except for a
few fragments and quotations.(4) We are therefore forced to
rely on these (remembering the possibility that they may not be representative
of Origens complete thought on the subject) and incidental references in
his later works. A further problem is that few of Origens writings are
extant in the original Greek, only in a Latin translation.(5)
This goes some way in explaining the different conclusions reached by scholars
engaged in this area of research.

Faced with the problem of the origin of the soul, Origen
found no clear guidelines in the Rule of Faith,(6) so
he felt free to speculate using Scripture and reason to fill this gap in
knowledge.(7) He felt keenly the force of the objections that
intellectuals were making against the Church in this area. Most Gnostics held
that each mans condition at birth was predetermined and beyond human
control. The Marcionites argued that the Creator God was unjust in allowing
some to be born blind or crippled through no fault of their own.(8) Origens solution to these problems was a development of
the Platonic ideas of Philo and Clement of Alexandria.(9)

Origen interpreted the Christian doctrine of creation as
follows: in the beginning was the spiritual world of rational creatures,
absorbed in the contemplation of God.(10) Two possible
explanations are put forward by Origen for the first fall. The
souls either became satiated with the contemplation of the divine(11) and became bored and so fell away from God. Alternatively,
he reasoned using the etymology of the word for soul (psuche) that the
intelligences moved away from the warmth of Gods presence and became cold
(psuchos). The cooling caused the intelligences to become souls, but
their ultimate form depended up their degree of cooling, in a
descending order.(12) It might be represented in a simplified
form as shown below.

The position of these rational creatures was not static, as
Origen conceived that eventually every rational creature would be saved and
returned to its original state of contemplative union with God,(13) even the Devil.(14) For the end is
always like the beginning.(15) The perceptible and
terrestrial world was created by God to house the fallen rational beings until
they should return to their original status.(16) Indeed the
whole point of Origens interpretation of the Bible was to show how a
believer might return to this original state of union with God.(17) This explanation solved completely the objections of the
Valentinians and Marcionites. Mans present state, even his physical
condition and place of birth, is the result of his souls original fault
committed in pre-existence.(18) Origen found scriptural
support for this in such passages as Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11: Jacob
I loved, Esau I hated...(19) In his Commentary on
Genesis Origen argued that the Fall took place, not because of
disobedience, but because Adam & Eves love for God cooled; they
became bored and rebellious, and the result was that they were driven from
Gods presence.(20)

Many people make the mistake of assuming that because Origen
taught the pre-existent fall of rational beings that he also denied the
historicity of Adam as an individual. It is equally inaccurate to argue that he
viewed Adams fall as being merely symbolic of the fall of every
mans soul.(21) The story of Adam and Eve in
Origens thought represented a second fall.(22) Eve was
deceived (because of her inherent weakness resulting from her fall in
pre-existence)(23) by the serpent who envied Adam and
deceived him by means of food.(24) Although some scholars
have argued strongly that Origen did not believe in the historicity of Adam(25) it appears to me that as we do not have Origens
complete works it is better for us not to be too dogmatic; for in his surviving
works Origen himself does not appear to have had just one view on the
subject.(26)

Origens doctrine of the pre-existence of souls would
not have been considered heretical in his day, because no clear doctrine on the
subject had yet been formulated. Only in the centuries that followed did the
idea of pre-existence come to be viewed as not only mythical, but even
heretical...(27) The doctrine was finally declared
heretical at the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553),(28) 300 years after his death! The controversy that later
developed in Origens name was owed more to the development and
systematisation his works by his followers than to Origen himself.(29)

Origen, in contrast to the Platonists, argued that the
creation was ex nihilo,(30) and that it took place in
time, but postulated that as God could never have been idle it must therefore
be one of an endless cycle of worlds (a Platonic concept). He appears to have
reasoned that creation was ex nihilo because he believed that the end of
the world was to be like the beginning. As the end of the world involved a
disappearance of all matter, so the beginning must have been the opposite: the
formation of all matter.(31)

It seems logical to conclude that Origen should not be taken
as a model of how modern Christians should interpret Genesis.

References

(1) Arthur C. Custance,
Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2.
(Brockville, Ontario: Privite Publication, 1970), 18. See above, Chapter
3.

(10) Trigg, Origen,
103; Eusebius, Against John of Jerusalem 7.18.21. Origen argued that
there must have been a finite number of these rational intelligences as an
infinite number would be incomprehensible to God - and this was unthinkable.
Trigg, Origen, 104.